ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2024
Identification of different classes of genome instability suppressor genes through analysis of DNA damage response markers.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Model-based inference of cell cycle dynamics captures alterations of the DNA replication programme.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Clinical application and drug resistance mechanism of gemcitabine.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- The micromammals.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cellular pathways that detect DNA damage are useful for identifying genes that suppress DNA damage, which can cause genome instability and cancer predisposition syndromes when mutated. We identified 199 high-confidence and 530 low-confidence DNA damage-suppressing (DDS) genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae through a whole-genome screen for mutations inducing Hug1 expression, a focused screen for mutations inducing Ddc2 foci, and data from previous screens for mutations causing Rad52 foci accumulation and Rnr3 induction. We also identified 286 high-confidence and 394 low-confidence diverse genome instability-suppressing (DGIS) genes through a whole-genome screen for mutations resulting in increased gross chromosomal rearrangements and data from previous screens for mutations causing increased genome instability as assessed in a diversity of genome instability assays. Genes that suppress both pathways (DDS+ DGIS+) prevent or repair DNA replication damage and likely include genes preventing collisions between the replication and transcription machineries. DDS+ DGIS- genes, including many transcription-related genes, likely suppress damage that is normally repaired properly or prevent inappropriate signaling, whereas DDS- DGIS+ genes, like PIF1, do not suppress damage but likely promote its proper, nonmutagenic repair. Thus, induction of DNA damage markers is not a reliable indicator of increased genome instability, and the DDS and DGIS categories define mechanistically distinct groups of genes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.